|
Grex > Coop13 > #82: Member proposal restricting staff's ability to delete conference items. |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 108 responses total. |
naftee
|
|
response 68 of 108:
| 
Jan 20 23:27 UTC 2004 |
re 67
> I indicated as much as soon as I saw her statement.
> And I'm a staff member too.
Right, and she sent mail to staff regarding this issue. So if you supposedly
disagree with her actions so much, home come it took you a full day to respond
to the item? You, like the rest of the staff and board, were hiding this
information from the GreX public. And then they blame the trolls. pfft.
|
tod
|
|
response 69 of 108:
|
Jan 21 00:03 UTC 2004 |
What a waste of a loyal user to both systems. I'd offer my ear to anyone that
could use it. Apparently, others would offer their "professional duty". Mary
did everything but tackle John and handcuff him..oh wait..
|
cyklone
|
|
response 70 of 108:
|
Jan 21 00:59 UTC 2004 |
OTOH, if her actions ultimately didn't harm jep (other than the breach
of trust which cannot be remedied by continued deletion) then I seriously
doubt there will be any harm ever from reinstating the items.
|
tod
|
|
response 71 of 108:
|
Jan 21 23:01 UTC 2004 |
Some folks feel differently I guess.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 72 of 108:
|
Jan 22 00:39 UTC 2004 |
Obviously. I just wish they would do a better job of describing exactly what
they are trying to say. So far all I've heard is outlandish speculation. The
only "harm" I've seen described in any detail is from jep himself, who
apparently is concerned about his son stumbling across the item. Of course,
his son will quite likely stumble into coop as well, so the cat is out of the
bag. Unless the next vote is to delete all the coop items discussing the
issue.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 73 of 108:
|
Jan 24 01:08 UTC 2004 |
Unless the argument is that he couldn't extrapolate as much gory
detail from here *cough* (right)
|
cyklone
|
|
response 74 of 108:
|
Jan 24 03:32 UTC 2004 |
Yup, the cat is out of the bag. You can't unring the bell. Too bad jep and
his apologists can't handle the truth.
|
aruba
|
|
response 75 of 108:
|
Jan 25 04:49 UTC 2004 |
Last night someone tried to fill up the disk by entering huge items in
Agora. I think the staff needs to feel fully empowered to deal with
situations like this, and not have to be afraid that if they delete items
they might be lambasted for violating some overly rigid rule. I trust the
staff to make good decisions in this area.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 76 of 108:
|
Jan 25 05:55 UTC 2004 |
I agree with that.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 77 of 108:
|
Jan 25 06:35 UTC 2004 |
Yes, and I believe that exception #3 as stated in response #49 covers the
SPAMming of a conference.
|
md
|
|
response 78 of 108:
|
Jan 25 13:36 UTC 2004 |
No response, no "exception." I'm not even gonna look at it.
We should *expect* whoever is on duty to pause the DVD he's watching
just long enough to do the least number of keystrokes on the Grex box
needed to delete the items and site-ban the account, and never devote
another second's worth of thought to the matter.
|
scott
|
|
response 79 of 108:
|
Jan 25 14:17 UTC 2004 |
"Duty"? We have people on "duty"???
|
md
|
|
response 80 of 108:
|
Jan 25 21:18 UTC 2004 |
Whatever!
|
gull
|
|
response 81 of 108:
|
Feb 6 16:06 UTC 2004 |
I'm not sure where we stand in the voting timeline on this. Could the
voteadmin fill me in? Regardless, to minimize confusion, I don't want
it to come up for a vote until after the results of the current votes
have been announced.
Here is what will probably be the final wording. I realize some of you
are never going to vote for anything like this on general principle, and
that's fine. I'm still willing to entertain suggestions for
refinements, though.
--- %< ---- cut here ----
Grex staff and conference fairwitnesses shall not remove items from
conferences. The following exceptions are made:
- Fairwitnesses of conferences where item removal is part of clearly
stated conference policy may remove items in accordance with that
policy. If no policy is posted, items may not be removed by fairwitnesses.
- Items that contain information that is unlawful to distribute or
otherwise presents a legal threat to Grex may be removed, IF the less
disruptive method of erasing individual responses is not sufficient.
- Items that adversely affect the operation of the conferencing system
software may be removed.
None of this should be construed to affect an individual user's right to
erase ("scribble" in Picospan) their own responses.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 82 of 108:
|
Feb 6 17:52 UTC 2004 |
Are entire conferences retired, archived, weeded out, to free up space or
something like that? If so, I guess that should be covered...
|
gull
|
|
response 83 of 108:
|
Feb 6 18:45 UTC 2004 |
I think that weeding out old items woudl be covered by individual
conference policy. (I fully expect, for example, that the 'classified'
conference would set a conference policy of deleting items after a set
period of time.) Archiving or "rolling over" conferences doesn't
actually involve deleting any items, so it wouldn't fall under this
policy. I suppose the deletion of a whole conference would be a grey
area; if you think it's necessary I could add a specific exception for that.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 84 of 108:
|
Feb 6 21:52 UTC 2004 |
If this proposal is meant to be "binding" upon bbs administration, then there
should probably be something in there about entire-conference item deletion.
Or maybe a disclaimer saying that this policy does not apply to that.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 85 of 108:
|
Feb 8 16:37 UTC 2004 |
After all the debate, both in this item and in the others on the general
subject, I think I understand what this proposal is hoped to accomplish,
but I think it misses the target. I think a much simpler proposal would
accomplish the goal in a much more straightforward manner:
Proposed: An item's author, the person who entered the
item in a conference, shall have the authority to remove
that item from the original conference and any conferences
to which it has been linked. If the software installed
on grex does not give the author sufficient capability,
the author may seek assistance from staff and fairwitnesses.
A single vote, yes or no, will settle the question until someone brings it
up again. If gull does not want to amend his proposal to use this text,
I will hope that his proposal fails and enter this as yet another proposal
on the subject.
NB: Although I am in favour of the proposal as I have stated it, I expect
that it would fail. I think the clarity it would provide worth another
24 days of anguish. I would also hope that the discussion of it would
be informed by the preceding discussions and so not replow infertile ground.
It occurs to me that failed proposals are usually not recorded and so are
often not seen as establishing an affirmative policy. I would appreciate
assistance in re-wording this proposal to permit appropriate recording
of the ultimate result. Unless and until gull accepts this amendment to
his proposal, please use e-mail to make suggestions to me. Note that I
have my mail from grex forwarded to my permanent address,
gelinas@umich.edu
Use whichever address is most convenient for you. Replies are promised,
and I will give credit where it is due, if I enter this proposal myself.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 86 of 108:
|
Feb 8 16:41 UTC 2004 |
If this proposal is passed, it will do a lot to choke off discussion, because
anyone who doesn't like how the discussion in their item goes can just nuke
it.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 87 of 108:
|
Feb 8 16:42 UTC 2004 |
Arguments like that are why I expect it to fail. And also why I would
probably vote against it myself.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 88 of 108:
|
Feb 8 16:45 UTC 2004 |
Weirdo.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 89 of 108:
|
Feb 8 16:50 UTC 2004 |
And the work-arounds would be really annoying (entering duplicate copies of
items, for example).
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 90 of 108:
|
Feb 8 16:54 UTC 2004 |
And the Jews would have a field day.
|
tod
|
|
response 91 of 108:
|
Feb 8 18:11 UTC 2004 |
Items almost invariably attract a bit of drift. This proposal would be
inviting abuse by the authors much like Grex staff by not restoring vandalized
items invites abuse by popcorn
|
gull
|
|
response 92 of 108:
|
Feb 8 18:49 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:85: The problem with that proposal, as I see it, is if it were
in place it would not have made it clear that staff don't have the right
to remove items on their own initiative. Therefore, Valerie would still
have been able to claim that she wasn't acting against any set policy.
I just don't feel voting *down* a proposal sets a clear policy.
|